CASE 2012-0070: EMILIO A. GONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES ET AL. (G.R. No. 196231) WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT VS. ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA ET AL. (G.R. NO. 196232) (04 SEPTEMBER 2012, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (BRIEF TITLES: GONZALES VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; SULIT VS. OCHOA)
======================
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 196231, the decision of the Office of the President in OP Case No. 10-J-460 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III is ordered REINSTATED with payment of backwages corresponding to the period of suspension effective immediately) even as the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to proceed with the investigation in connection with the above case against petitioner.
In G.R. No. 196232, We AFFIRM the continuation of OP-DC Case No. 11-1 B-003 against Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit for alleged acts and omissions tantamount to culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of public trust, in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”
======================
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
DOES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN AND THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?
YES. THE OMBUDSMAN’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY POWER OVER A DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IS NOT EXCLUSIVE. SECTION 8 OF RA 6770 (THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989) GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO REMOVE THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN AND THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FROM OFFICE AFTER DUE PROCESS.
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that
Section 8. Removal; Filling of Vacancy. —
x x x x
(2) A Deputy or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WAS THE DISMISSAL OF GONZALES AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CORRECT?
NO. HIS REMOVAL MUST BE FOR ANY OF THE GROUNDS PROVIDED IN THE REMOVAL OF THE OMBUDSMAN. THE ALLEGED GROUND OF BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST WAS NOT PRESENT IN HIS CASE.
PETITIONER GONZALES MAY NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE WHERE THE QUESTIONED ACTS, FALLING SHORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, DO NOT CONSTITUTE BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Congress laid down two restrictions on the President’s exercise of such power of removal over a Deputy Ombudsman, namely: (1) that the removal of the Deputy Ombudsman must be for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman and (2) that there must be observance of due process.
To read the full DECISION please download the file below:
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 